[Serious Phil] [analytic] Re: The Causal Closure of the Physical

[SWM]

--- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, "andy_kappa" <Philscimind at ...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> > "andy_kappa" <Philscimind@> wrote:
> >
> > > The point of having the term in this particular case is to enable discourse about it, and for one group of people, that seems to be working quite well. Of course it invites the engagement of our instinctive desire for an explanation, and explanations may be forthcoming, but none of these are testable since consciousness on this use of the word is non-empirical. This is not a religious claim but a recognition of what was always already the case, but what was always being overlooked. It is in taking a subsequent step that it might turn into a religious claim like the claim for god or the claim for an immortal soul, but that next step need not be taken. It can be presented as a simple "brute fact" and left at that, so avoiding any religious connotations. The value of this realization lies in the very act of seeing that nothing more can be said, with the consequence that certain commonly held default views might be recognized for the sterile speculation that they are (physica
>  lism being a case in point). It could be said of it that it clears away a lot of muddled thinking, and that's no bad thing.
> 
> ==========
> 
> "SWM" <Philscimind@> replied:
> 
> > I think I understand how you could see it that way. I don't, though. My tendency here is to go with what I take to be a view consistent with the later Wittgenstein and see the issue as a matter of sorting out the linguistic usages rather than making reference without a referent, which is how I read the approach you're presenting. From where I stand, I don't see any gain in simply recognizing that there are some places language cannot go and focusing on them in the course of engaging in discourse (using language). I do see the value of meditation -- I've done my share of it over the years -- and I do see the value of knowledge as practice (done that, too). But discussions about consciousness have to be about something. Nothing's gained, I think, by supposing that the meaning of "consciousness" that's of interest is the one that has no real meaning at all. -- SWM  
> 
> ==========
> 
> What is gained from understanding this particular use of the word 'consciousness' is that certain commonly held default views might be recognized for the unnecessary and sterile speculation that they are (physicalism being a case in point). But regarding our respective memberships to these two opposing groups, never the twain shall meet. 
> 
> 


Except that I WAS once in your camp and thought as you do. So the twain met! -- SWM